Here we go …
Toward the back end of Indian Wells …
• Here’s the latest Served. Special guest … Rafael Nadal.
• We need more Dan Hurley characters in tennis.
• Sending good vibes to Matt Van Tuinen.
• Tallon Griekspoor hasn’t just beaten Daniil Medvedev and Alexander Zverev this year. He is on Amazon …
• RIP Fred Stolle.
• This week’s unsolicited book recommendation: Winning Trust by Stan Smith and business partner Gary Niebur.
• A tennis-adjacent aside: I have the good fortune of being in London this week and stumbled into a tremendous exhibit at the Barbican. Who is the late Noah Davis? I’m told he is in the top 20 in the rankings (PIF sponsored) of the most influential American artists of the 20th century. He is also the son of Keven Davis, an early agent/advisor/lawyer of Venus and Serena Williams who, on a personal note, was so generous and accessible to a young clueless reporter as he tried to navigate the tennis scape.
Onward …
As is the case with big events, the first week often skews negative, with fans reacting to losses, wondering what is up with Player X? Next week, when trophies are dispensed and rankings get fattened with points, I suspect the questions will be more upbeat.
We had a few questions about Naomi Osaka after her early Indian Wells defeat. That grew to include Novak Djokovic, Frances Tiafoe, Félix Auger-Aliassime, etc.
• The old cut-and-paste: One of tennis’s great virtues is the ability for players to right themselves (and rewrite themselves) in a short amount of time. In 14 sets, compressed within 13 days, Madison Keys went from a fine, powerful veteran with a bad history of injuries to a major champion and borderline Hall of Famer. Can four-time champion (pause to note: Coming off the Roger Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Serena era we are spoiled, four is a huge haul of majors in normal time anyway) Osaka rediscover the highest level? Sure.
Specific to Osaka, it’s been a rough road. She didn’t return from maternity leave to win a round or two at a major, much less to play the “worst match I’ve ever played in my life” against a sub-50 opponent, at what is, essentially, a home event—a tournament she has won before. There are moments (and even full matches) when she looks brilliant. There are also moments when she has the accuracy of the T-shirt cannon, spraying balls (and wearing a look of utter dejection). Just as she must console herself by thinking her best tennis isn’t far away, at least at some subconscious level she also must know she can be equally close to those days when she can’t find the court. That’s a hell of a burden to overcome.
One additional point: Following her 2021 success, Osaka cashed in. She suckled, not just at the endorsement trough, but dabbled in film and fashion. Not a week went by without my inbox getting some press release about a Sweetgreen this or collaboration that or a production company or some vague brand extension. And good for her. Athletes need to get the bag while they can. You never know when an injury will strike you, confidence will fray or life events will derail a trajectory—or some combination. If Osaka never wins another big match, her legacy is secure. Her financial future is, as well.
There were a lot of questions about Djokovic, who lost to giant killer Botic van de Zandschulp over the weekend. Regular reader “Dan” wonders: “Is this the end? And if not how long can he allow himself to go on like this?” Another friend wrote, “I don’t watch matches or follow the ATP thread but it seems like Novak has a problem.”
I’m not sure what to say here. The Olympics notwithstanding, Djokovic hasn’t won an ATP event or a major since 2023. He also won the gold medal at the Paris Olympics and beat Carlos Alcaraz at a major a few weeks ago.
Seeing Djokovic lose in the early rounds of tournaments, to players who wouldn’t have represented speed bumps not long ago? It ain’t right. It’s uncomfortable.
Yet … this is the life cycle of an athlete, isn’t it? Djokovic is on the cusp of turning 38 (!). How surprised can we be? There’s a longer think piece here about the life cycle of an athlete. The fresh and undented optimism of youth (Mirra Andreeva, João Fonseca). The transition after a few seasons to potential greatness (Coco Gauff, Alcaraz). The meaty prime (Iga Świątek, Aryna Sabalenka). The veteran (Keys). The aging vet, deep into their 30s, convinces themselves, What I lack physically, I offset with experience and wisdom (Djokovic 2023) … then the inevitable denouement, the capitulation to the non-negotiable, irreversible, immutable force that is time.
Jon, I know you have had your issues with Nick Kyrgios, but what do you make of his latest setback? Will we ever see him again?
Giancarlo
• First, just to be clear, I have zero issues with Kyrgios. I have no beef with Kyrgios. We are Impossible Burgers, as far as I am concerned. I have written glowingly about him when I felt he earned it. I have written condemningly of him when I felt he deserved it. People are complicated and multidimensional, Kyrgios included.
I read a great line recently about a playwright but it applies here. “He delights in iconoclasm—until the moment he needs a hug.” Right now, Kyrgios needs a hug. And tennis ought to be here for it. Wrist injuries are no joke. (Dozens of players—including major champs—can attest to this.) Listen to Kyrgios after the match and I don’t see how even the trolliest of trolls can wish him anything but the best.
Like or dislike someone personally, we should not take pleasure in someone else’s pain. But especially not an athlete, whose body is at the essence of their job, and often identity.
Hey Jon,
Given the Oval Office vibe, do you anticipate tensions at Indian Wells matches involving players from the U.S. and Ukraine? In particular, I’m thinking about the potential for players from Ukraine to eschew a post-match handshake/hug at the net, as they have been doing for the past 3 years with players from Russia and Belarus? To be clear, it feels awful that this question even comes to my mind. My apologies if it puts you in an awkward position.
Best regards,
Jim Lenker
Buffalo, NY
• Good question. Without polling the locker room, I hope the Ukrainian players realize that many—I daresay most—Americans support them, recognize Russia as the immoral aggressor, believe in Ukrainian sovereignty, that their leader is no dictator, that Vladimir Putin is a blight on humanity, etc. It seems as though this was conveyed at Indian Wells.
Adjacent to your point … We debate the effectiveness or wisdom, but tennis still refuses to acknowledge the flag of Russian players, a condemnation of the Ukraine invasion. Yet, these same players compete in an event in a country whose leader supports Russia. A strange sphere, this world we all currently inhabit.
Jon, why are doubles matches at Indian Wells so well-attended, but apparently not so at other tournaments? The extended format Indian Wells uses is now common in ATP and WTA 1000 events.
Dave D.
• Any number of reasons. Tradition. Scheduling. Knowledgeable tennis fans are there for the action and not the suites. But the big reason is that Indian Wells tends to draw the best fields, and the most stars.
One of you asked why Indian Wells has such strong fields. There is a practical answer and there is a conspiratorial answer. The conventional answer: The timing (and setting) of Indian Wells militates in favor of players playing alongside a partner. There are extra days baked into the schedule. The climate is agreeable. Sometimes this is a good opportunity to prep for the Davis Cup. Several players weigh the options: I can make some extra scratch playing small matches (in front of big crowds), with a partner in the paradisical desert. Or I can head to Miami early and practice at a football stadium off the Turnpike. Easy choice.
Less pragmatically and more sentimentality … I’ve heard the suggestion that top players are grateful to Larry Ellison and the Indian Wells event. For its no-expense-spared trappings. For its contributions to tennis. For its accommodations. (Note where Djokovic stayed in 2025.) As a show of thanks, they enter multiple draws.
An aside: We all hate the larded Masters 1000s. This is a rare point of near-universal agreement in the Land of Tennis. But if there’s any upside maybe we see more singles players entering doubles at these events, given the dead time?
I would love for you to do a story about my theory that a tennis player can’t win a grand slam if they’re wearing a backward cap.
Paul S.
• Griekspoor would like a word with you! (And Lleyton Hewitt circa 2002.) When Holger Rune wins Roland Garros, you’ll eat your words!
Seriously, please expound on your theory. We’d be interested to hear. I once asked a player why he wore a backward baseball cap when, presumably, a big reason for wearing a hat is the sun protection provided by the bill. He responded that he didn’t like serving and looking up to his brim. But wearing a backward cap not only appeased a sponsor but captured his sweat. Also, who remembers Akgul Amanmuradova? The rare women’s player who wore a backward cap. (No majors.)
ON THAT PROFOUND NOTE, ENJOY THE BACK HALF OF INDIAN WELLS, EVERYONE!
More Tennis on Sports Illustrated
This article was originally published on www.si.com as Tennis Mailbag: Making Sense of Early Indian Wells Exits .
